This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Connecticut chimp attack victim seeks right to sue state

Actually, the state has a responsibility to protect people from dangerous animals once it creates an agency funded to do just that.

A mildly interesting corollary...

What if the state recognized it was illegal, but simply chose that other things were if greater importance in which to focus time and resources to dealing with than the chimp.

I can see an argument that the state would be culpable to some degree, but I think it would also be mitigated by the woman's own actions as well. In this instance, had the state acted then it could've been prevented....but it still could've been prevented without state action if she did not put herself into a knowingly dangerous situation.

Re: Connecticut chimp attack victim seeks right to sue state

Originally Posted by Morality Games

Liability works a lot of ways.

In this case, the state repurposed money from citizens to task an agency with protecting the citizens from dangerous animals, then failed to act in that capacity when the drawn out process preceding this event indicated intervention was necessary.

The Commissioner even agreed that the agency didn't behave appropriately, but noted that this is the sort of mistake the state is allowed to overlook because making good on the failure would open the floodgates to a stream of lawsuits that would impede its ability to fulfill its greater prerogatives.

In short, the state is too important to be impeded with moral responsibility for its failures.

They key point here is that the state took the victim's money for the treasury under the threat of legal action if she tried to evade taxation. Her money bought her into the package of public services the state provides, including protection from situations of this nature. That is the key. If they hadn't purposed the role of protecting the public from dangerous animals and tased an agency to that effect, the moral obligation would not exist at all because the prerogative of individuals to protect themselves (which conservatives assert exists) would never have been taken away from them.

As it is, the state is arguing that it has the right to collect taxes to provide services and then fail to provide those services without any consequence.

The proximate cause of the injury was on the owner of the chimp not the state.

Re: Connecticut chimp attack victim seeks right to sue state

What if the state recognized it was illegal, but simply chose that other things were if greater importance in which to focus time and resources to dealing with than the chimp.

I can see an argument that the state would be culpable to some degree, but I think it would also be mitigated by the woman's own actions as well. In this instance, had the state acted then it could've been prevented....but it still could've been prevented without state action if she did not put herself into a knowingly dangerous situation.

Re: Connecticut chimp attack victim seeks right to sue state

Originally Posted by Mr.Nick

The only possible way for this case to even have a chance to proceed would be a) the chimp was illegal and there is proof the state/animal control failed to remove it or b) the chimp was known to be a danger and the state/animal control failed to remove the animal.

Furthermore your pesudo-logic here is quite funny considering dogs (and other animals) bite/kill/injure people every year, yet have you ever seen a party sue the state over a dog bite or even a swarm of bee stings?

Though these discussions pro or con are entirely academic becasuse of the sovereign immunity card that the State can, and will play.

There probably would be a lawsuit against the State if they tailored a laws or ordinances to exempt a particular pit bull owner. Especially if that particular Pitbull had gotten out of control or showed aggression before and they still not only tailored the laws to exempt that particular dog and owner, but then failed to enforce the limited laws that existed (enclosure law). Then factor in that there are, how many chimps in Connecticut? So the State cant really claim it is unreasonable to do an enclosure inspection.

But... with sovereign immunity, the Sovereign cant be negligent. My guess is that the Sovereign will decide to toss her a million dollars via a special legislative act and then close the matter. If she wants more, then they will assert their immunity.

Originally Posted by US Conservative

Its a hard thing for many to understand, but in the end you are responsible for your safety. Not the state.

As with the other poster, I disagree - to a degree.

The State has a social contract with members of society to ensure their safety when reasonable and possible. The hard part is defining "reasonable" and "possible".

Too much one way creates a nanny state ideaology. Too much the other way caters to ideaologies that claim that health and safety regulations regarding food, transportation, building and construction, financial services, products etc. are "unconstitutional".

Re: Connecticut chimp attack victim seeks right to sue state

Originally Posted by Cryptic

Though these discussions pro or con are entirely academic becasuse of the sovereign immunity card that the State can, and will play.

There probably would be a lawsuit against the State if they tailored a laws or ordinances to exempt a particular pit bull owner. Especially if that particular Pitbull had gotten out of control or showed aggression before and they still not only tailored the laws to exempt that particular dog and owner, but then failed to enforce the limited laws that existed (enclosure law). Then factor in that there are, how many chimps in Connecticut? So the State cant really claim it is unreasonable to do an enclosure inspection.

But... with sovereign immunity, the Sovereign cant be negligent. My guess is that the Sovereign will decide to toss her a million dollars via a special legislative act and then close the matter. If she wants more, then they will assert their immunity.

As with the other poster, I disagree - to a degree.

The State has a social contract with members of society to ensure their safety when reasonable and possible. The hard part is defining "reasonable" and "possible".

Too much one way creates a nanny state ideaology. Too much the other way caters to ideaologies that claim that health and safety regulations regarding food, transportation, building and construction, financial services, products etc. are "unconstitutional".

You can sue anyone or any entity for anything - there is nothing stopping a person from doing that, however it is up to a judge to decide if there is any legal credence to their claims.

And NO - a state shouldn't be held responsible for anothers stupidity unless they were blatantly negligent (e.g - a cop lets a drunk off the hook and he drives home with someone in his windshield).

Re: Connecticut chimp attack victim seeks right to sue state

Originally Posted by TurtleDude

I know for a fact that numerous police agencies know where "crack houses" are located. There are many reasons why the police don't move on such public nuisances when the police first become aware of said entities. Now lets say crack house operators engage in a gun battle with rival crack dealers and a little girl walking to grandma's is hit in the crossfire

Re: Connecticut chimp attack victim seeks right to sue state

Originally Posted by Hatuey

And I say she does based on the fact that the state did not perform its duties after it:

1) Created a law designed to prohibit the ownership of apes over 50 pounds because of this chimp..
2) Allowed the owners of this animal to keep him in enclosures that did not follow Massachusetts law..
3) Refused to follow Massachusetts state law and dispose of the animal accordingly..

At every point of the equation the state was negligent and the fact that it was negligent allowed for this attack to occur. As I see it, the state will settle out of court and pay out a large sum of money because it failed to act for 6 years. What are they going to argue? That the same state where it takes days for animal control to put down a pibtull took 6 years to put a chimpanzee in a suitable enclosure?

And if she's a resident of that state, then she PAID for that service and for them to do their jobs properly. Which they did not.

Originally Posted by Bucky

I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.

Originally Posted by applejuicefool

A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.